not consistent with our state constitution for one thing. so, also, we have problems with parking as it is with bikes in san francisco. i can't but help believe that when you implement, if you implement this program, it would make it more difficult for private bike users to safely and legally park their bicycles. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on item number 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> so, colleagues, yes, president chiu. >> just one follow-up question to staff. obviously i think san francisco will probably have a somewhat different experience with bike sharing compared to the south bay. i'm wondering, you had one side about what the future of bike sharing would look like and what we're hoping for. could you give us a sense of what you think that differential might be like? ~ between our two counties and how we sort of -- what is in

the conversations and our relationships with other jurisdictions to take into account what might be different rider ship rates? >> ridership rates -- i don't expect -- i don't honestly know, but judging from the success in d.c. where the bikes right now are used about five times a day, i expect that's what we'll get here. so, i think usership rate will be somewhat lower. i can't actually say because what we're trying to do in the peninsula is different than what's been done elsewhere. that's one of the interesting things about this pilot. qualitatively i think the difference between san francisco and the peninsula, here we are really going to be approaching this as a, sort of a blanket of stations, one every two to three blocks. and it will be sort of a network that really is just superimpose on our good north korea. whereas along the peninsula, we're talking about something that's more like a hub and spoke model that is situated at

the caltrain dot mode and has outlined sort of campus. aside from high density housing and things like that in the downtown corridor of these cities, it will be taking people out to sort of further-flown destinations. and that's the main difference between what we're doing here and what they'll be doing on the peninsula. >> great, thank you. and i know as we get more data, we'll be having a longer conversation about this. i do hope as we think about future planning in our conversations with our south bay colleagues, that we take those factors into account as to where we resource and put more bikes. >> thanks. >> thanks. >> thank you. colleagues, seeing no further comment, is there a motion to forward item number 5, the resolution to the full board with recommendation? >> so moved. >> okay. and can we take that motion without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> mr. clerk, can you please call item number 6? >> item number 6 is an -- >> madam clerk, excuse me. >> item number 6 is an

resolution approving the grant of a tieback subsurface easement on assessor's parcel block no. 192, lot no. 035, to the chinese hospital association required for the chinese hospital replacement project; adopting findings that the grant of subsurface easement is consistent with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code, section 101.1, and environmental findings; and authorizing the director of property to execute documents, make certain modifications, and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. ~ >> thank you very much. supervisor farrell is the lead author of this legislation. supervisor farrell. >> thank you, mr. chair. i want to thank everyone who is here and stuck around today for this legislation, including my colleagues. this has been a long road to get to today. i want to thank supervisor wiener for your support in this legislation. we introduced this legislation last year in 2012. and since that time we have had numerous ongoing meetings with all parties involved in these discussions. i want to thank the tic advocates as well as the tens advocates who sat down over the course of the last few months and certainly last week, as well as supervisor chiu and norman yee who are introducing amendments today. about two months ago, both sides sat down over a multiple week span and had some

encouraging and not so encouraging discussions. nevertheless, important, but given the two sides have not spoke men years, that we had that dialogue. last week alone, i met with the tenants advocates in my office and spoke with them over the weekend as well as met with numerous times ~ with the tic advocates over this weekend, the past few weeks, and even this morning in my office. from the outset and my goal in create thing legislation was three fold. first of all, provide relief for current tic owners who in my mind represent the face of middle income families here in san francisco. we've heard over time that police officers and the teachers that are tic owners, they're being forced to pay interest rates that are currently double the market interest rates here in our is city and across our country. and to provide a path for them for secure ownership here in our city. second of all, to protect tenants in tic buildings. it is very important to supervisor wiener and i when we

introduced this legislation, we [speaker not understood] tenant protections in tic buildings by providing lifetime leases and also providing a pool of money for affordable housing if here in our city. it is one of san francisco's greatest challenges and this legislation will create a large pool of capital for affordable housing projects here in san francisco. ~ legislation that would satisfy these goals and principle i would support. as a former tic owner, i understand the issues involved with these buildings and the toll it takes on middle income families here in our city, and i want to do everything possible to support them. in terms of the amendments to the legislation that are being offered today, i just received them a short while ago. so, i really have not had the opportunity to walk through them in detail. but i did have a chance to speak with the tenant advocates about them last week as well as supervisor yee, and i spoke in his office last week about them. and i do believe that in principle we are close to a compromise.

specifically, allowing an opportunity for all current tic owners to take advantage of the condo bypass legislation. this is a critical piece. suspending the lottery based on a formula of how many people take advantage of the bypass, something, again, i think we should wrap our arms around and support. and excluding buildings in the future that would have encouraged speculators to displace tenants for profits, that's something i never supported, never will. these are all things that i very much agree with. ultimately, the devil is in the details so i'm going to reserve full judgment here until i read the text of these amendments in detail. but i do believe that we have a framework to move forward and do so quickly. again, in my mind, this has been the product of months of discussions and i think that where we are is a great place to leap forward. i also want to mention something supervisor yee and i spoke about briefly. it's a concept of introducing trailing legislation to make sure that the $20,000 fee is

not a hindrance for property owners that potentially cannot afford it right now, and we will look to create mechanisms to make sure that that did not get in the way of people taking advantage of the bypass. in terms of the compromise, my hope in these next two weeks while the amendment is in the committee is to find a full compromise to bring both sides together 100%. [speaker not understood] is a far cry from where either side started in our discussions and i believe we are close. and i know that both sides are very passionate about this issue. and for me forging a middle ground so we can have legislation that hopefully passes 11 to nothing at the board, but also avoids heading to the ballot, which is a real potential with this issue is the goal. i appreciate the tic's advocates willingness to come back to the table and as well the tenants' willingness to meet after these amendments are introduced today. my hope is that in two weeks we can have consensus and accomplish what nobody thought was possible when we started this process. thank you very much.

>> supervisor yee. >> thank you. first of all, i want to thank supervisor wiener and farrell for even making an attempt to address this issue. today i'm going to be introducing amendments to basically mold our visions of the t it ic condo conversion further. when i first started looking into this issue of tic condo conversion, it was clear to me that any compromise needed to focus on two basic aspects. one, i wanted to address -- i wanted to address the issues that current tic owners face today. number two, i wanted to address the risk of speculation that might ensue with a large number of tic being allowed to convert to condo and what effect that could have on our affordable

housing stock. i believe these amendments strike the right balance. they allow current tic owners, whether they had applied to the lottery or not, to convert through an expedited process that will allow those who are in a difficult situation to convert the tic and hopefully be able to refinance. at the same time, i believe that this proposal protects our affordable housing stock by linking the number of units converted from tic to condo to the number of units of affordable housing we produced. i want to really highlight this. we recognize as a board that we want to protect our affordable housing stock, and therefore, we recognize that by losing units through the conversion process, we are committed as a city to replace those units with affordable housing. in this legislation, we want

the length of the suspension to be directly linked to our ability to build affordable housing, creating a shared commitment to affordable housing. we also want to curb speculation by sending clear rule that protect tic owners that reside in their units by requiring a higher threshold of occupancy for future conversion. in the future, we want to limit the conversions to 30 buildings of four units or less, and require higher occupancy levels for these same buildings for a three-unit building, two units had to be occupied for owner. for a four unit, three units need to be occupied by owners. i think it is important for decision makers to listen to all parties and ultimately make decisions that seek the best interest of everyone, and i think that this is what we are doing today. thank you.

>> thank you. president chiu. >> thank you, mr. chair. and first let me start by thanking all the members of the audience for your patience and not just today, but over the last few months in getting us to where we are today. as supervisors yee and farrell alluded to, i will be introducing amendments to the proposed bypass legislation. and i want to take a moment first to thank the many tenant organizations that have worked with my office and our supervisors on this from the san francisco tenants union to the affordable housing alliance, ccdc, to the housing rights committee, the tenderloin housing clinic, just cause, and many other organizations that have been passionate on this topic and have really helped to shape i think many of our thinking on it. i also want to take a moment and thank supervisor farrell for his leadership as well as the tic owners and representatives at the real estate community. i believe that they have worked in good faith in the discussions that we've had in

recent weeks and i do look forward to the discussion we'll have today as well as in the coming weeks on this. and i want to also thank supervisor yee for the work that he and his staff had done with my aide judson true and i to move this forward and i also should thank our city attorney john malmud who has spent many, many weeks and many, many hours particularly over this weekend in getting the amendments that we have in front of us today. so, as far as sort of a high level on what it is we are trying to achieve with these amendments, as i've said before, i appreciate the intent of the legislation, which is to try to address the plight of tic owners in very challenging financing situations. with that being said, i think many of us have been concerned if we allow the current generation of tic owners to convert, we will quickly replace them with the new generation of tic owners after additional real estate investments and evictions lead right back to the debate we're having today. the amendments that i will be asking to move forward will protect san francisco's renters

while addressing the plight of tic owners that are currently in the condo conversion system. the basic and the heart of these amendments are quite simple, to allow the existing condo conversion lottery participants to convert over the next few years with the payment of the fee that was proposed in the existing legislation, but to also ensure that as we expedite these conversions and we expect at least 2000 or more tic owners to convert, protect tenants by suspending the lottery for new participants for at least ten years. what i'd like to do, colleagues, in the next few minutes, is to summarize the specific amendments. there are really 7 elements to the amendments that we're offering. and i'm going to give to our clerk copies of the legislation that i'm introducing as well as a summary of them that members of the public wish, if you could please put that on the front table, folks wish to pick them up. so, let me just go through the amendments. first of all, similar to what supervisor farrell's proposal had put out, we will be

creating an expedited conversion process, although it will involve a slightly larger class than what supervisor farrell had entailed. it would involve 2012 and 2013 lotteries who could convert by paying the proposed $20,000 fee with discounts for years in the lottery over a two-year period. lottery participants who have been owners for five years or more would be eligible for conversion during the first year of the expedited program. and then all other lottery participants would be eligible for conversion in the second year of the expedited program. but then beginning with the third year of the expedited program and continuing through year 6, any tic as of april 15th, 2013, today, that meets the existing [speaker not understood] owner occupancy requirements, one owner occupant for buildings that are two to four units or three owner occupants for buildings that are 5 to 6 units, would be eligible for conversion once they meet the six-year

occupancy requirement. so, that's the first piece of our amendments. the second piece of our amendments -- by the way, if there are not enough copies, there should be. folks can stop by my office down the hall and we can certainly make more copies and this will be online shortly. the second element, though, as i alluded to before, would be a suspension of the lottery. and a slightly complicated formula but it would be as follows. the lottery would be suspended for at least a minimum of 10 years. the maximum period of the suspension would be the number of converted units divided by 200, which is the current annual number under the lottery. and then there's an additional element that supervisor yee had suggested that if the city were to produce affordable housing units beyond both 300 per year envisioned under last year's proposition c, 2012 housing trust fund and the number of units that are converted under the lottery, the suspension could be closer to 10 years than the maximum described.

so, for example, if 2400 units converted under the expedited process, the maximum length that the suspended lottery would be 12 years, 2400 divided by 200. but if say 5400 affordable housing units which would represent 3,000 prop c units plus another 2400 replacement units were built within 10 years, the lottery would resume within 10 years which would be the minimum. so, in other words, what we're trying to do is to encourage everyone involved in the housing and real estate community to really push for the development of more housing units because the faster we can do that the faster the lottery would resume. the third element of the proposal today would be adjustments to future lotteries. once the lottery resumes, the proposal that supervisors yee and i are putting forth would state that only buildings with four units or less would be eligible. in other words, larger buildings that are filled with tenants currently 5 or 6-unit

buildings would not be eligible. the owner objecttion pan is requirements for those buildings would increase to two owner occupants for three-unit buildings and three owner occupants for four unit buildings. another element of the proposal would involve lifetime leases to require both written and recorded lifetime leases and to extend the leases to the disabled and catastrophically ill household members of the initial tenants. a fifth element would be a deferral of fee payments for those applicants who requested fee deferral under 200% of the area median income [speaker not understood]. to supervisor farrell's suggestion, supervisor yee supports, whether we can have trailing legislation to support those condo conversion applicants and some assistance to them in open to seeing if there is a way to do that. the sixth element of the proposal would require some level of public review of

conversion applications to really strengthen the public review of these applications by providing port possibility of a hearing at the department of public works. and then the last element of this, which is new, would be if there is a lawsuit a is filed against this legislation to suspend the expedited conversion process until there is a final legal determination with regards to this program. so, again, with that, i very much want to thank everyone who has been involved in this. i know we're going to have public comment, but one of the things i'd like to suggest as far as how we move forward, there really are two ways in which we can move forward with consideration of these amendments. i think the simplest way to move this forward would be to amend the current version of the legislation that sits here in committee. i have expressed before that i don't support the current version that's here in committee. supervisor kim and i unfortunately can't talk about this directly, but i understand from the newspapers that she does not either. so, one thing that we can do is simply amend the current version out of respect to the

legislative sponsor, though, i'm also prepared if this is something we'd like to do, to duplicate the file and to then include our version, supervisor yee, and my version as an amendment of the whole to the duplicated file so that we have two versionses of the legislation which would then set as required by our sunshine and transparency statutes until the next hearing on this topic. and i'd like to suggest to the sponsoring supervisor i'm happy to move forward with either path depending on what you see fit. >> supervisor farrell. >> thanks, mr. chair. and thank you, president chiu, for your comments, for your amendments as well as supervisor yee. we have had discussions over a while about these and president chiu, i appreciate your comments. i think at this point in time i would feel comfortable amending them into my legislation. and i think in the spirit of good faith moving forward, again, i do think we're within striking distance of achieving common ground and which is what we sought to do from the get go.

and meeting objectives of both tic owners and tenants advocates, again, some find it hard to believe we are going to get there, but i think we are very, very close so i would be open to having an amendment to the legislation and carry the item going forward. >> supervisor kim. >> i will reserve my thoughts for after public comment, just recognizing that some folks have been waiting here a long time. but i will also be introducing one amendment as well and i will pass out copies in advance. but it's really out of concern for the precedent of [speaker not understood] hawkins act in terms of how it will impact this legislation as proposed. and, so, i will distribute these amendments and i will make a motion after public comment. >> thank you. supervisor kim, can you describe that amendment so folks in the public know what it is? >> sure, i appreciate that.

so, part of the legislation was the lifetime leases that are established for tenants that are currently in the condos that are able to get this bypass. but this has some challenges based on state law. i believe there are some concerns about enforcing those lifetime leases. so, since costa hawkins prevents restriction on property after sale. i wanted to make sure that the lifetime leases are signed and recorded prior to close of escrow. so, the following amendment would, one, prevent any contracted seller transfer converizonthed properties. 2, prevent sell until after the mapping process is complete and the lifetime leases have been recorded. the amendments will require the applicants to complete a form certifying no contract to transfer/sell until after mapping and will make the mapping contingent upon the

completion of this form. >> okay, thank you, supervisor kim. colleagues, are there any additional comments? if not, then why don't we open it up to public comment. public comment will be two minutes. when you have 30 seconds left, you will hear a soft bell. when your time is up, you'll hear a louder bell. and if you would like to speak and if not filled out a blue card, please do so and hand it to the clerk. so, i will call the first batch of public speakers. waynn hu young. [speaker not understood] lee. tina chung. cynthia cruz. ernestine weiss. cathy lip scum. mitchell [speaker not understood]. judy golden. ryan thayer. patty lee. lorenzo [speaker not understood]. i apologize if i don't read your name correctly.

and alan begham. go ahead. [speaking through interpreter]

good afternoon, my name is [speaker not understood] and i represent community association. our 1,000 members [speaker not understood] mono lingual elderly tenants. we are very concerned about the current legislation because [speaker not understood] those units will be taken out of rent control housing stock. this will open the flood gate and incentivize speculators and tenants because of properties increased value. a lot of the affected tenants are all low-income and they won't be able to afford other places once they get evicted. i have also experienced the eviction process before and i do not wish for anyone to go through that stress.

our biggest concern is speculators being motivated to get into the tic market. as we clear out the waiting list we are worried more speculator are going to jump in and get in the conversion [speaker not understood] whim it is ready.

[speaker not understood]. therefore, i strongly urge the board of supervisors to take the renter's needs into consideration and adopt amendments to the legislation that will not reduce rent control housing and deter rent real estate speculation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. [speaking through interpreter].

i'm mrs. [speaker not understood] lee and i live in

district 3 knob hill area. by [speaker not understood], mr. matthew miller, he wants to convert my building into a tic unit and sell the individual units to buyers. i'm one of the last remaining tenants in my building. like other tenants i'm not opposed to tic owners who need to refinance or have financial difficulty. however, the concurrent proposed legislation without amendments will not address the issue or protect myself and others from some of the san francisco's most vulnerable. at the same time this would effectively prevent property owners from loopholes. my husband and i are elderly. i take care of my adult daughter with needs. [speaker not understood]. living in the city is one of the few choices we have. i don't drive. my dower needs to attend special adult needs dare de care nearby. we don't speak english. my basi